ECT For MADs: if Scofield was right...
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
From what I remember from my dispensational days, Israel is part of the church age at present. Some believe in a future dispensation for them to follow and some do not, so it seems to depend on one's eschatology at that point across board (again if I remember this correctly).
It doesn't matter what I think. Scripture is our final authority. And scripture has much to say about the Remnant of Israel. For example we are spiritual gentiles and members of Christ's Body with the spiritual Jewish believers who are members but also that make up the Israel of God. Just like their history has been so it is today. A small minority within the nation are faithful to the God of Abraham. We are not overtakers but partakers of the Jewish blessings. That for example is why I have no difficulty seeing that the two witnesses of revelation will be two future Jewish men whom God will elevate to the office of prophets. Why resurrect OT prophets? God still has a remnant as He always did and right now the leading Jewish scholar is Dr Fruchtenbaum. Who was Charles Ryrie's protege that penned the 1200 page book Israelology the Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Where Frucht examines all of Schofield's doctrines thru the Jewish frame of reference adding what he and other excellent teachers missed out on due to the lack of exposure to Jewish scholars.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Lon
Well-known member
"If" my only reason for opposing Paul, in forum (what in God's Name am I saying) was simply to battle MAD. I've lost sight of the ball. There can be no embracing Christ without embracing Paul or vise versa. We don't agree on some timeline issues and I am Covenant Theology. But, if you think about it, Covenant theology believes in an unfolding plan rather than a change BUT it ends with Paul as well. In Him. -Lon
musterion
Well-known member
musterion
Well-known member
But that is exactly what dispensationalism is about. We of the mid Acts persuasion do not believe in this change label we keep having stuck to us. Humanly speaking it probably did look like God was making some major changes at the time. But with the fullness of Paul's revelations we know that that was what He intended all along. At least that's how I view it.
Lon
Well-known member
Part of the problem is in the name "Dispensationalism." I've no idea what such would be called, but another neat thing I learned about where we are on the same page :up:
Less than I had thought entering the thread. I'd think most of it has to do with eschatology. Hilston actually had this discussion with another and I just sat and listened. So rather than reinventing the wheel, I'll try and find that thread as a link? It that's okay. I don't want it to get too far off the topic. I think it an important one AND I think you just gearing up for probably the fight of the year, or just this month. Too many are going to get caught up in a Paul vs. Jesus conversation. Even Paul got caught up in that one with Apollos. If I have any predicting ability, you are in for it (you might have missed a bullet or two keeping this in ECT). -Lon
What would be the point?
Okay, we do NOT all hold to the same "MAD."
At the same time, attempt to compare different understandings and or to point out possible misfires in understandings we each might do well to reflect on, only ends up in the exact kinds of daily animosities between some, and or on the part of one side or another, that one sees between "MADS" and non "MADS" on this forum, every single day.
Frankly, that has gotten old...and boring.
Two posts to STP, and that is as far as that exploration goes.
Any to heir, and next thing one knows, one is putting up with her insolence.
Try to explore a subject with Glory Days, and next thing one knows, any difference in understanding is met with her accusation that pride on the other guy's part is the reason.
And so it goes with any dealings with you and yours.
The kid gloves you sacrifice in your dealings with others; you expect towards you and yours...or else.
What then would be the point of winning a GT, a dodge, an Interplanner and so on, over to our perspective?
For what?
More bickering?
You and yours - that's right - you and yours - refuse to correct this about yourselves.
It is no surprise then, that you and yours voted for the very poster boy of this kind of pettines...for President: Trump.
One more instance of you and yours... high fiving someone who holds your same values, where dealing with differences with others...is concerned.
Result?
The present so called MAD forum lays in a coma, unless there is something to bicker about.
You and yours are great at that. And at high fiving one abother in that kind of thing.
You do not, however, support any other MADist who either does not hold your extremes, or who so much as mentions a difference in understanding; who is not of your club.
Seriously; you guys actually think the non "MADS" envy our little paradise?
:allsmile:
Lon
Well-known member
Might actually be another reason for having one. If too many cooks ruin the stew, allowing non-chefs in the kitchen would about destroy any attempt :think:
Well, it amazes me how "Brainwashed" you are by "Reformed Theology." Calvinism is a tool of Satan.
As usual, you're WRONG. How do you do it?
I thought Paul was brilliant in how he would use so many patterns of how GOD dealt with man in the past to express the principle (not fulfillment, but principle) he was making for what GOD was doing now.
And I can see why Peter said Paul's epistles would be hard for some to understand.
Because Jews would have been offended to hear someone tell them that the law given by GOD through Moses was like Hagar the bondmaid.
They would probably want to shut their ears before hearing the rest of it and knowing why Paul said it that way.
Oh no! Not that dastardly elusive CLUB again. Anything but the CLUB!!!!!
Depends on one's approach when studying such things out.
Questions like "well, what was Paul talking about that prompted him to bring that up? What does he continue to talk about? Also, is he referring to one principle or rule of thumb; directltly? Might it be instead, if not also; that he is actually referring to some other principle he is basing that one on?"
It is actually that kind of dynamic that results in different people taking one or another part of the proverbial elephant for the whole, at the expense of seeing the actual whole.
Note the first word.
He is about to base what he is about to say, on a principle...
The first word - "wherefore" - indicates he is about to elaborate further, on a general rule of thumb he has been basing what he has been talking about...on.
2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
The first principle he is actually basing what he first asserts in that passage is the principle that he has been talking about just before getting to that passage...
The principle of Believers being careful not to put their own needs over that of others - which is the issue of a fleshly viewpoint having been allowed to dominate.
Who does that read like a description of?
The Corinthians.
That is the very issue he has been addressing.
2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
At the same time, Paul ever having been Paul - ever looking at things through various rules of thumb or operative principles; he cannot help but point out that principle is actually based on a Dispensational distinctive.
Principle One...
2 Corinthians 5:16a Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:
2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Principle Two...
2 Corinthians 5:16b...yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
One is an issue of the flesh principle.
The other is the Dispensational one that one is based on - on God's NEW Creature.
And I'm sure there are other principles in there.
This principle - of all these principles within one - is what makes just Thirteen Epistles...an ever expansive ocean of endless wonder as to just who this New Creature is, how he operates, and so on...
Or as Paul would later be able to "speak unto as unto spiritual" - the Ephesians- about these things the Corinthians had not yet been able to bear, for their having remained "yet carnal, even" or that is to say, yet "babes in Christ..."
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
musterion
Well-known member
For you? Nothing but dissension, condescension and conflict. As it always is with you.
ASK ANYBODY.
So you would not feel comfortable in such an environment. Too stuffy, too "you guys."
Example: many if not most of the MADs here are Open View. I"m sympathetic but not fully convinced. But we get along just fine despite that difference, it seems to me. We agree on almost everything else, more often than not. We may offer correction or ask questions, but gently and with respect for one another and for Truth.
On the other hand.
You...YOU are an expert nitpicker for the sake of nitpicking. A needler for the sake of needling.
Edification is not your thing. Your pious platitudes notwithstanding, your condescending dismissals of us are abundant proof.
We don't do that to each other.
You do. Without faith. Like clockwork. It is now what you, Danoh, are KNOWN for.
So if there were such a MAD ONLY club, I'm sure you'll agree it'd be best for all involved if you didn't try getting past the velvet rope.
Didn't read the rest of your post. No point...we're not the same MAD.
How's the receiving end feel?
Ta.